How does frugal innovation emerge and lead to sustainability in developing

countries? A case study in Malian agricultural areas.

Mamadou Sissoko*, Annick Castiaux*

*Creativity and Innovation Research Center
*University of Namur, Belgium
mamadou.sissoko@unamur.be, annick.castiaux@unamur.be

Paper1 prepared for presentation for the 166th EAAE Seminar

Sustainability in the Agri-Food Sector

August 30-31, 2018

National University of Ireland, Galway
Galway, Ireland

Copyright 2018 by Mamadou Sissoko and Annick Castiaux. All rights reserved. Readers may
make verbatim copies of this document for non-commercial purposes by any means, provided
that this copyright notice appears on all such copies.

1
This version is a Work in Progress.

Page 1
How does frugal innovation emerge and lead to sustainability in developing
countries? A case study in Malian agricultural areas.
Mamadou Sissoko*, Annick Castiaux*
*Creativity and Innovation Research Center, University of Namur, Belgium

Abstract

We analyze a case of frugal innovation. We look at the innovation process that led to the
creation of a motorized seeder in Mali to face the climate change, and we explore its
antecedents, enablers and consequences. Thanks to an in-depth qualitative case study and
literature review, we analyze our case with the purpose of better understanding the process itself
and the elements that play a key role. After having discussed what frugal innovation is and how
it relates to sustainability, we develop several contributions. Firstly, we open the black box of
sustainable frugal innovation process. Secondly, the paper shows particularly how antecedents
such as resources scarcity, institutional voids, and social problems, are considered in the whole
innovation process. A third contribution is to put into evidence the importance of bricolage,
frugality and eco-friendly practices, as well as the key role of collaboration, as crucial enablers
and as key mechanisms in the innovation process. Finally, our analysis of the main impacts of
sustainable frugal innovation in the context of our case allows to advance the debate of
innovation for sustainability (economically, socially and environmentally), in addition its
impacts in terms of reinforcement of market institutions, continued collaboration and customers
consumption behavior (e.g. co-consumption). We conclude our contribution by proposing a
model taking into account the different elements identified through our study.

Keywords: sustainable frugal innovation, frugal innovation, sustainable innovation,

sustainability, farm mechanization, developing countries

1. Introduction
Agriculture appears to be the pillar of many African developing economies, employing more
than two thirds of their active population (FAO, 2016). Simultaneously, agricultural systems
often fail to meet the needs of low-income populations in developing countries, especially in
the context of climate change. As result, this population is at the bottom of the pyramid (POB)2
and, consequently, not targeted by the suppliers of modern equipment and farm inputs.

2
According to Prahalad (2005), the large part of the world population is at the bottom of the pyramid, i.e. a segment
who is very poor and living on less than $2 a day. It has been pointed out that over 2.5 billion people live on less
than $2 per day (Prabhu et al., 2017).

Page 2
Accordingly, developing local, affordable, sustainable, and user-oriented farm technologies and
services remains a priority to fight against hunger and poverty. Especially since previous
mechanization and modernization races undertaken by some African governments have led to
huge expenses in equipment that remained unused as it was not adapted to the field reality
(FAO, 2008). Innovation seems to be the process to follow in developing world (World Bank,
2011; Worldwatch Institute, 2011), but not just any. Authors currently agree that alternative
innovation types have to be designed to ensure their impact when resources are scarce and
institutions are weak (Prahalad, 2005; Prahalad and Mashelkar, 2010; Sharma and Iyer, 2012;
Radjou et al., 2012; Annala et al., 2018). Following those authors, those innovation types,
generally named frugal innovations, aim at doing more with less, under difficult conditions, to
serve a large part of poor population. With respect to that, this new innovation paradigm is
clearly different from the conventional Western innovation paradigm, where important research
and development investments are supposed to maximize return on investment and growth. The
theorists of this new paradigm propose, on the contrary, point out that constrained environments
can be an opportunity for innovation (Prahalad, 2005; Radjou et al., 2012).

Very recently, Pisoni et al. (2018) have conducted a systematic review of frugal innovation.
They explored how the frugal innovation concept was developed by scholars in the last years.
We agree with them that the frugal innovation topic has been addressed around some main
issues such origins and definitions of frugal innovation, the characteristics of resource-
constrained environment where it emerges, its process and crucial enablers, as well as its
impacts. Despite the importance of the frugal innovation topic in literature, it remains
theoretical, and its relationship with sustainability is limited or not fully clear. Thus, we will
specially focus on the term sustainable frugal innovation (SFI) in this research.

In this paper, we illustrate the process of SFI by studying an innovation case concerning a
mechanization project in the agricultural sector in Mali. This project was a collaboration
between a national research organization, local farmers, and local small entrepreneurs, as well
as technical and financial partners in Mali. To analyze this case, we have chosen a qualitative
methodology based on interviews with the different stakeholders. Through this case, we try to
understand SFI through the analysis of its antecedents, enablers and consequences.

The paper is organized as follows. In the first section, we present the background of frugal
innovation, and its links with sustainability. The second section is devoted to the presentation
of the research framework. After, comes the research gap. The fourth section briefly describes
our methodology. We develop the main results in the fifth section. Finally, we conclude with
Page 3
discussion, implications for academics, managers and policy makers, and suggestions for future
research, as well as the limitations of our research.

2. Background
This section provides an introduction to the concept of frugal innovation and its possible links
with sustainability.

2.1. Frugal innovation

The interest for alternative innovation types for and from developing countries has raised in the
literature, with examples (see Sharma and Iyer, 2012; Tiwari and Herstatt, 2012a) coming from
a variety of fields and industries: agriculture (M-Farm mobile applications in Kenya, solar
irrigation pumps in Bangladesh, mini-tractors in India), health (electrocardiogram system in
India), automobile (Tata Nano low-cost cars in India), mobile banking (M-Pesa in Kenya,
Orange money and Mobicash in Mali). The increasing interest for those alternative innovations
has also led to an avalanche of concepts such, Bottom Of Pyramid Innovation (Prahalad, 2005),
Grassroots Innovation (Dey and Gupta, 2016), Cost Innovation (Williamson, 2010), Frugal
Engineering (Radjou et al., 2012), Frugal Innovation (Zeschky et al., 2014), Jugaad Innovation
(Radjou et al., 2012), Inclusive Innovation (George et al., 2012), and Resource Constrained
Innovation (Sharma and Iyer, 2012), etc. Previous studies (e.g., Prabhu, 2017; Bhatti and
Ventresca, 2013; Zeschky et al., 2014) argue that the term frugal innovation should be viewed
as a label of these terms because all related terms describe essentially a similar phenomenon
(constrained environments). The concept of frugal innovation seems sharing many of
characteristics (e.g. low price, small use of inputs, reuse of existing components, easy to use,
etc.) with those other concepts (Tiwari and Herstatt, 2012b).

In definitive, the philosophy of frugal innovation is based on the transformation of scarcity into
competitive advantage through frugality, flexibility, ingenuity and inclusiveness (see Radjou et
al., 2012; Prabhu and Jain, 2015), as well as simplicity, quality, multi-functionality in new
products and services (Sharma and Iyer, 2012; Ernst et al., 2015). Ernst and Young (2011)
define frugal innovation as an economical use of resources to provide products affordable by
those on a lower income. Frugal innovation concerns multiple innovators such as, individuals,
local firms, public organizations, multinationals, etc. It very often involves the development of
technological products or services. In addition, if endorsed by actors from developing countries,
this approach can contribute to tackle brain drain experienced by those countries. Other scholars

Page 4
point out that frugal innovation can emerge in developed countries for their own specific
growing markets (see Pisoni et al., 2018).

Despite the attention it has received, frugal innovation remains an emerging topic and deserves
more research. It is recognized that frugal innovation research shares many similarities with
research on sustainability (Prabhu, 2017). We explore those connections in the following
subsections.

2.2. Sustainable frugal innovation (SFI)

Due to increased social inequality and environmental damage, policies call for sustainable
development in the world, "a development that meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs" (WCED, 1987). In the
same way, Geissdoerfer et al. (2017) defined sustainability as "the balanced integration of
economic performance, social inclusiveness, and environmental resilience, to the benefit of
current and future generations". This kind of innovations must reduce resource, energy, land
use, and emissions and waste, etc. during the production and the consumption phase (Bocken
et al., 2014). Thus, the challenge of sustainable development has conquered the core of the
frugal innovation in developing countries in response to poverty, food insecurity and climate
change. To study SFI, sustainability research streams can be relevant. Socially and
economically, frugal innovation tends to be inclusive (George et al., 2012) by serving a large
numbers of low-income people, who are often excluded of the formal market (Prabhu and Jain,
2015). According to George et al. (2012), inclusive innovation is defined as "the development
and implementation of new ideas which aspire to creating opportunities that enhance social and
economic well-being for disenfranchised members of the society". For instance, Christensen et
al. (2006) think that inclusive or catalytic innovations can reduce worldwide inequalities by
focusing on various areas, such the economy, health, education, etc. In sustainability
perspective, practices of frugality becomes necessary to avoid excessive and unfair
consumption by intentionally turn actions to social and ecological conditions (Nash, 2000;
Pepper et al., 2009). While the populations are huge, and resources are scare it is essential to
implement sustainable practices, e.g., using recycled materials in the design and production
(Radjou and Prabhu, 2015), and into new product development process (Sharma and Iyer,
2012). Those authors argue that one of the fundamental principle of frugal innovation is to bring
sustainable solutions, “which could be shared, reused, customized as well as offering more to
cheer for the customers and also saves a lot when it comes to costs and the environment”, in
developing markets. Frugal innovation definitely reduces the use of financial and natural

Page 5
resources in the innovation process, in developing countries, and create value for customers,
partners, and society (Rosca et al., 2017).

Only a few studies address empirically frugality and sustainability in innovation process. In
India, Annala et al. (2018) tried to understand the case of low cost household waters filters
innovation among local small scale entrepreneurs and end users interactions. They stipulate that
the active participation of the end users as co-producers in frugal innovation process in order to
meet users’ needs and price expectations. These authors showed that frugal innovation can be
ecological clean, affordable, and assures social impacts in resource-constrained environments.
In addition, Rosca et al. (2017) have focused their research on business models of frugal
innovation in BOP markets and their potential for economic, social ecological sustainability
outcomes. Finally, Pansera and Sarkar (2016) examine frugal innovation process at grassroots
level in developing countries. They suggest that grassroots innovators cannot be only co-
producers but producers of frugal innovation for social and environmental sustainability.

In this study, we use the term sustainable frugal innovation (SFI) regarding frugal innovation
for sustainability. We define SFI as the development or adaptation of products and services,
under the resource constraints (e.g. financial, human and natural) in the innovation process,
with the aim to satisfy the social needs of low revenue and non-served populations. Such
innovation emerges generally from the collaboration between multiple actors, and it is essential
to maintain the collaboration over time for more efficiency. In a context of globalization, those
actors can come from developing countries, as well as developed countries. Thus, we consider
SFI as an inclusive process of innovation that promote social, economic, environmental
sustainability and continue collaboration, and enhance market institutions. It is recognized that
such systemic innovation leads to sustainable growth (Prabhu, 2017). Previous studies (Rosca
et al., 2017; Shivdas and Chandrasekhar, 2016) have mentioned SFI, without define it clearly.
However, Pansera and Sarkar (2016) defined sustainability-driven frugal innovation as “the
desire to generate solutions designed to minimize the impact on the environment, combined
with the scarcity of material and financial resources, it leads to the development of more
energy/material efficient solutions”.

3. Research framework
Drawing on the theoretical and empirical literature on frugal innovation, and sustainability, the
main supports regarding our research question were identified. To answer how frugal
innovation emerges and leads to sustainability, we found relevant to explore in-depth three

Page 6
elements which characterize the innovation process: antecedents, enablers or crucial practices,
and outcomes, which are mentioned as relevant issues in Pisoni et al. (2018) systematic review
about frugal innovation.

3.1. Antecedents
Constrained environments make developing economies in Asia, Latin America and Africa an
ideal context to rethink the paradigm of innovation. Most people in developing economies have
low revenue, and work in the informal sector (Sheth, 2011; Prahalad, 2012). In view of those
situations, the new paradigm of innovation suggests that constrained environments provide an
opportunity for innovation (Prahalad, 2005; Radjou et al., 2012). Several recent studies have
considered constrained environments as drivers of frugal innovation in developing economies
(Sharma and Iyer, 2012; Bhatti and Ventresca, 2013; Pansera and Owen, 2015). Our
understanding of constrained environments includes resource constraints, institutional voids
and social needs (i.e., basic needs such as food, health, education, energy), which better
characterize developing economies.

3.2. Crucial enablers and practices

Ernst et al. (2015) identify three practices for affordable value innovation: bricolage and local
embeddedness, and standardization. Ernst et al. (2015) have also found that bricolage allows to
combine existing resources in new and creative ways in order to face lack of resources, and
local embeddedness gives them the collaboration possibility (with local partners) to overcome
the lack of institutions and avoid market failure. Tiwari and Herstatt (2012b) put into evidence
collaboration at all phases (initiation, development and diffusion) of frugal innovation process
in India. Accordingly, in this study, we consider bricolage, frugality practices, eco-friendly or
environmental sustainability practices, and collaboration as main enablers of frugal innovation.

3.3. Consequences
As already described, scholars have paid attention to impacts of frugal innovation for low
income customers in developing countries. Constrained environments offer the opportunity to
develop and distribute innovations and green solutions in order to optimize sustainability
impacts (Prahalad, 2005; Sharma and Iyer, 2012; Brem and Ivens, 2013; Levänen et al., 2016;
Hyvärinen et al., 2016; Rosca et al., 2017), economically, socially, and environmentally.

4. Research gap
Scholars are only beginning to be interesting in innovation for and in developing economies,
and remain largely based on India or China. While interesting, existing studies are mainly
Page 7
theoretical, market-oriented, or present the frugal innovation process as black box. Therefore,
they look at antecedents, enablers and consequences separately. Thus, they neglect to integrate
these key elements together for a deeper understanding of frugal innovation. In this study, we
try to operationalize the three elements and its attributes. In contrast, this research will explore
SFI in Africa. To the best of our knowledge, this study is one of the first ones to open and
explore the black box of SFI, especially in Africa (see also Wooder and Baker, 2012). While
prior studies on frugal innovation are often firms-based views (focused on MNCs’ innovations),
this research analyses a case of innovation project including a local public research
organization, customers (farmers) and local small entrepreneurs (blacksmiths), NGOs and
foreign partners, in the sector of agriculture in Mali. Our innovation case is expected to be
associated with the integrated perspective of frugal innovation and sustainability.

5. Methodology
Our empirical study uses a qualitative exploratory methodology. We first present the research
context, then we develop our research strategy. Finally, we briefly present the case and the data
collection modalities.

5.1. The context of farm mechanization in Africa

In Africa, agriculture is mainly rain-fed. Consequently, this sector is impacted by climate
change, farming performances being strongly correlated with rainfall (Sultan et al., 2015).
Additionally, rapid population growth and increasing urbanization in Africa raise the challenge
to improve farming productivity, not only to ensure food security, but also to meet the
requirements of urban markets, which generate higher revenues for farmers. To face those
challenges, African farmers expect a lot from technological innovations in the fields of farm
mechanization and modernization (Pingali et al., 1987; Houssou et al., 2014). With
mechanization, farmers can gain much more work power, increase the productivity and time
efficiency of field operations (Cerutti et al., 2014). According to FAO (2013), mechanization
technologies from developed countries are more and more sophisticated, less and less
affordable and not profitable for small African farmers. Adekunle and Oluwatosin (2015) add
that farm mechanization in the 21st century should be simultaneously compatible with the
environment, economically viable, affordable and adapted to local conditions. These
technologies should be more frugal, sustainable and convivial that could fit the needs of
customers in poor countries, rather than those who use a lot fuel (Gomiero, 2017).

Page 8
Consequently, we are convinced that the context of farm mechanization in Africa is very
interesting to study SFI. Through our case study in Mali, we could thus contribute to a better
understanding of agriculture mechanization in developing countries and to research on SFI.

5.2. Research strategy

Our exploratory research uses a qualitative approach centered on a case study, as formalized by
Yin (1989). The case study strategy seems relevant for our research purpose. Following Hlady-
Rispal (2002), “the exploratory case study aims at understanding one or several management
situations and analyses them in detail […]”. As a matter of fact, exploratory method allows the
emergence of new elements to better understand the studied phenomenon. Our case study will
give us the opportunity to understand in depth, explain and illustrate the phenomenon linked to
SFI and does not generalize theory or results.

5.3. Case study presentation: the motorized seeder

In this research, the case was chosen because of the nature and the newness of the innovation
(Habib, 2010; Gurca and Ravishankar, 2015). The motorized seeder is the result of a
collaboration between the IER (Institute for Rural Economy of Mali), the project leader,
NORAGRIC (International Environment and Development Studies, Norwegian University of
Life Sciences), GCOZA (Coordination Group for Arid Areas), farmers (users) and local small
entrepreneurs (blacksmiths), in the context of a project named “development of technical
options to adapt agriculture to climate change”.

Figure 1. Motorized seeder for fertilizers and seeds

The project is linked to the context of farm mechanization that was developed earlier. It follows
previous works of IER, since 2006, concerning mechanical distribution of micro-doses of seeds
and fertilizers. The motorized seeder technology was developed to reduce farm hardship and to

Page 9
improve production and productivity of cultures in the context of climate change. The project
lasted 5 years from June 2010 to June 2015. It included research, development and diffusion of
prototypes of motorized seeders.

5.4. Data collection and analysis

In this research, we used three data sources: semi-directive interviews, documentation and
observation. This supports data triangulation (Yin, 2009). To collect data, we contacted
stakeholders who were directly involved in the project, as well as some experts of farm
mechanization in Mali. The individual interviews involved researchers (IER), NGOs members
(from ADRA Mali and ADAF/Gallé), members of GCOZA, experts and farmers, and were
generally conducted in Bamako and in the area of Kati. Nevertheless, due to the rainy season,
three interviews were performed by phone. In total, we led 24 interviews (13 farmers, 2
researchers, 5 experts and 4 NGOs agents) from August 2016 to January 2017. The interviews
took between 30 minutes and 90 minutes. We also collected documents as activity reports and
evaluation reports of the project. We completed this information by on-site observations at the
farmers’ places.

The interviews were transcribed, coded and analyzed (see appendix). We used NVivo, software
for textual data analysis, which makes data analysis more easy and systematic (Sinkovics et al.,
2014). In the data analysis, we drawn on the method proposed by Gioia et al. (2012). Other
works in management of frugal innovation literature have pointed out the fruitful and robust
characteristics of this method for theories validation or building (Pansera and Sarkar, 2016;
Pansera and Owen, 2016). Following those authors, the analysis was organized in two main
stages. First, we created a data structure with respect to our research subject, and then, we
discussed about the theoretical elements that emerge from this structure. Especially, the data
structure included three main levels: informant terms (1st-order), theoretical emerging themes
(2nd-order) and aggregate level.

Example from the data structure

1st-order
2nd-order Aggregation
“Climate changes. The things we used
before do not meet our expectations Resource Innovation process:
anymore, today. Thus, we have to find constraints initiation phase
other means.” [Informant]
6. Results

Page 10
 The results put into evidence the elements characterizing antecedents, enablers and
consequences of SFI, as they appeared in the interviews. The following table summarizes the
obtained results (see appendix for details). Finally, on the basis of our empirical results, we
propose an extended model of SFI.

Summary table and model

Table 1. Antecedents, enablers and consequences of SFI, from the case of the motorized
seeder
ANTECEDENTS
Resource constraints Institutional voids Social needs
Financial Breach of contracts Problems of low
Natural or and rules => trust revenues and foods
environmental (rains) crisis insecurity in rural areas
Constrained environments
Human Exclusion in developing countries
Material Lack of vision
Weak State power
ACTIVITIES AND ENABLERS
Initiation Identification of needs Identification of needs Interactions with farmers
and expectations and expectations
Development Reduction, Recycled Trust Seeking partnerships
and Reused of Actors’ roles and Farmers experimentation
resources use responsibilities Co-development
Bricolage (farmers, manufacturers,
Innovation
Mutual learning NGOs, donors)
process
Farmers capacity
building
Diffusion Donations to some Proximity of Co-consumption
first adopters manufacturers (local Co-diffusion (farmers,
Farmers capacity production, service manufacturers, NGOs,
building provision) donors)
CONSEQUENCES

Economic: affordability, cost minimization, use utility, multi-functionality

Social: youth employment, female farmer empowerment, household and
social cohesion, feeling of social progress
Outcomes Environmental: recycling facility, fuel-efficiency, lower soil degradation,
use of micro-doses technique
Institutional: norms respect, trust building, accessibility
Collaborative: interaction, openness, network (local small entrepreneurs,
NGOs, research organizations, etc.)

The previous table and the results that we obtained through our case study lead us to propose a
model of SFI, refining the previous proposals from the literature. In particular, we open the
black box of the innovation process and we underline the importance of enablers at every step
of the innovation process, and we identify some antecedents and consequences of this process.
This model is proposed in Figure 2.

Page 11
 Figure 2. Proposition of a model for SFI

6. Discussion and conclusions

Our study is in line with prior research (Rosca et al., 2017; Sharma and Iyer, 2012; Shivdas and
Chandrasekhar, 2016) and contributes to the literature on frugal innovation and innovation for
sustainability. Empirical studies on frugal innovation are practically nonexistent, the main
works are linked to the Indian context, and often focused on firms' innovation perspective
(Cunha et al., 2014) or individual and small community grassroots innovations' view (see
Pansera and Sarkar, 2016). An in-depth qualitative case study investigated in Malian
agricultural sector can be relevant, given the growing interest for the African markets in a
context of globalization. This case study concerns a project innovation where multiple actors
were involved, including research institute, a foreign partner, NGOs, farmers and local small
entrepreneurs.

This research is also an answer for Pisoni et al. (2018) call to study the whole frugal innovation
process. Until now, most research has considered the process of frugal innovation as a black
box. Our study is an initial attempt to analyze the whole innovation process of SFI. In this paper,
we extend existing research by proposing a conceptual model that contributes to a clearer
understanding of how SFI emerges and leads to sustainability. Thus, this paper serves to better

Page 12
reveal the antecedents, enablers and consequences of SFI. We also expanded the definition and
the understanding of frugal innovation through sustainability considerations.

Particularly, our findings make some important contributions to the literature.

As antecedents, we confirm findings of prior research that SFI emerges from constrained
environments, and social needs. The paper shows particularly how the antecedents: resources
scarcity, institutional voids and social problems or needs are considered in all the innovation
process. To face those problems, innovation process, revealed non-linear, requires different
activities and enablers.

The paper thus shows how bricolage and collaboration, as well as frugality and eco-friendly
practices, can be crucial enablers for SFI. In respect to Gurca and Ravishankar (2015), the study
illustrates how different types of bricolage activities relate to the development of SFI in
constrained environments. We found that bricolage activities, frugality practices (using of less,
recycled and reused resources) and eco-friendly practices can be aligned.

The paper also shows how various types of collaboration (interactions for idea generation, co-
development and co-diffusion) relate to different phases of innovation process and to different
types of stakeholders. We show that collaboration in constrained environments allows access
to foreign partners and NGOs financial and technical resources, farmers’ informations,
experimentations and feedbacks, local small entrepreneurs’ skills and proximity, and leads to
mutual learning, capacity building and trust reinforcement. The relevant role that the innovation
promoter play in SFI process is also another contribution of this paper. He is the central actor
in the innovation project.

Finally, our understanding of what are the main impacts for SFI allows to advance the debate
of innovation for sustainability (economically, socially and environmentally) as well as the
survival of innovation in constrained environments in terms of reinforcement of market
institutions, continued collaboration and customers consumption behavior (e.g. co-
consumption).

Our study has also important implications for innovation managers as well as for policy makers.
In terms of implications, this study provides more details to managers that would like to conduct
or implement an innovation project in constrained environments. The research suggests that the
managers should seek to combine different local resources and skills, and global collaboration
in order to satisfy social needs of neglected population. Given importance of developing

Page 13
markets, local entrepreneurs and firms as well as multinational companies can play a crucial
role for promoting SFI and enhance competitive advantage. Some Asian MNCs are already
present on these markets, for instance in telecommunication or motorcycle domains. They must
be encouraged for a better integration of sustainability dimensions and be interested by light
mechanization in agricultural and foods sector. In developing countries, it is important to note
that resources scarcity and institutional voids should not views as barriers but as the way to
stimulate creativity, innovation (Cunha et al., 2014), and to gain new market opportunity.

Given the strategic importance of innovation in growth, especially in agricultural and foods
sector, in developing countries as Mali, the policy makers can play a key role in terms of
infrastructures (roads, electricity) (Prabhu, 2017) to facilitate farmers or transformers market
access. It could be also relevant to bring frugality and sustainability practices in public research
centers. Our case study show how a public research organization deliver a SFI with its partners,
farmers and local small entrepreneurs. In this respect, policy makers can create opportunities
for local entrepreneurs and response to social demands. According to Hall et al. (2018), it
becomes particularly pertinent for public research labs and universities to be a driver of
sustainable technologies for local entrepreneurs and firms in constrained environments. Finally,
policy makers can also continue encouraging co-consumption (equipments sharing in rural
areas) perhaps through farmers organizations. We believe that SFI can turn agricultural into a
very attractive sector for many youth in poor African countries if the policy makers catch
seriously this opportunity.

This study is not without limitations. They result mainly from the exploratory nature of
qualitative research, and from the single case study. Despite the originality of our innovation
case study in Malian agricultural sector, it is less generalizable. In addition, the fact that the
seed machine is not freely commercialized yet, can be a limit for affordability issue. Future
research could use a quantitative method to test attributes found regarding antecedents, enablers
and impacts of SFI, and their relationship. It would be interesting to study this concern from
multiple case studies, across different sectors or countries. It is also necessary to take into
account the cultural factors of context where SFI occurs. Finally, in this context of multi-actors
collaboration and multi-sourcing of components, future research could attempt to clarify the
type or the owner(s) of intellectual property.

Page 14
 7. References

Adekunle, A. and Oluwatosin, A. (2015). Mécanisation agricole. Document de travail. Conférence

Nourrir l'Afrique, Dakar, 21-23 octobre 2015.
Annala, L., Sarin, A. and Green, J.L. (2018). Co-production of frugal innovation: Case of low cost
reverse osmosis water filters in India. Journal of Cleaner Production 171: S110-S118.
Bhatti, Y.A. and Ventresca, M. (2013). How can « frugal innovation » be conceptualized? Said Business
School Working Paper Series, Oxford.
Bocken, N.M.P., Short, S.W., Rana, P. and Evans, S. (2014). A literature and practice review to
develop sustainable business model archetypes. Journal of Cleaner Production 65: 42-56.
Brem, A. and Ivens, B.S. (2013). Do frugal and reverse innovation foster sustainability? Introduction of
a conceptual framework. Journal of Technology Management for Growing Economies 4.
Brem, A. and Wolfram, P. (2014). Research and development from the bottom up introduction of
terminologies for new product development in emerging markets. Journal of Innovation and
Entrepreneurship 3(1): 9.
Cerutti, A.K., Calvo, A. and Bruun, S. (2014). Comparison of the environmental performance of light
mechanization and animal traction using a modular LCA approach. Journal of Cleaner Production 64:
396-403.
Christensen, C.M., Baumann, H., Ruggles, R. and Sadtler, T.M. (2006). Disruptive innovation for social
change. Harvard Business Review 84(12): 94.
Cunha, M.P., Rego, A., Oliveira, P., Rosado, P. and Habib, N. (2014). Product innovation in resource-
poor environments: three research streams. Journal of Cleaner Production 31(2): 202-210.
Dey, A. and Gupta, A.K. (2016). Empathetic Climate Resilient Frugal Innovations for Sustainable
Communities. IIMA - INDIA, W.P. No. 2016: 03-53
Ernst and Young (2011). Innovating for the next three billion: the rise of the global middle class.
Ernst, H., Kahle, H.N., Dubiel, A., Prabhu, J. and Subramaniam, M. (2015). The antecendts and
consequences of affordable value innovations for emerging markets. Journal of Product Innovation
Management 32(1): 65-79.
FAO (2008). Agricultural mechanization in sub-Saharan Africa: time for a new look. FAO, Rome. 22.
FAO (2013). Agricultural mechanization in sub-saharan Africa: guidelines for preparing a strategy.
FAO, Rome. 22.
FAO (2016). The State of Food and Agriculture: Climate Change, agriculture and food security. FAO,
Rome.
Geissdoerfer, M., Savaget, P., Bocken, N. and Hultink, E. (2017). The circular economy - A new
sustainability paradigm? Journal of Cleaner Production 143: 757-768.
George, G., McGahan, A.M. and Prabhu, J. (2012). Innovation for inclusive growth: towards a
theoretical framework and a research agenda. Journal of Management Studies 49(4): 661-683.
Gioia, D.A., Corley, K.G. and Hamilton, A.L. (2012). Seeking Qualitative Rigor in Inductive Research:
Notes on the Gioia Methodology. Organizational Research Methods 16: 15–31.
Gomiero, T. (2017). Agriculture and degrowth: State of the art and assessment of organic and biotech-
based agriculture from a degrowth perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production 1-17.

Page 15
Gupta, A.K. (2012). « Innovations for the poor by the poor », Int. J. Technological Learning, Innovation
and Development 5(1-2): 28–39.
Gurca, A. and Ravishankar, M.N. (2015). A bricolage perspective on technological innovation in
emerging markets. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 63(1): 53-66.
Hlady-Rispal, C. (2002). Les études de cas: application à la recherche en gestion, Coll. Méthodes en
Sciences Humaines, De Boeck.
Houssou, N., Diao, X. and Kolavalli, S. (2014). Can the private sector lead agricultural mechanization
in Ghana? International Food Policy Research Institute. Washington, D. C.
Hyvärinen, A., Keskinen, M. and Varis, O. (2016). Potential and pitfalls of frugal innovation in the
water sector: insights from Tanzania to global value chains. Sustainability 8(888).
Levänen, J., Hossain, M., Lyytinen, T., Hyvärinen, A., Numminen, S. and Halme, M. (2016).
Implications of frugal innovations on sustainable development: evaluating water and; energy
innovations. Sustainability 8(4).
Nash, J.A. (2000). Towards the revival and reform of the subversive virtue: frugality. In Consumption,
Population and Sustainability: Perspectives from Science and Religion Eds. Chapman, A.R., Petersen,
R.L., Smith-Moran, B., Washington, DC: Island Press: 167–190.
Pansera, M. and Owen, R. (2015). Framing resource-constrained innovation at the ‘bottom of the
pyramid’: insights from an ethnographic case study in rural Bangladesh. Technological Forecasting and
Social Change 92: 300–311.
Pansera, M. and Sarkar, S. (2016). Crafting Sustainable Development Solutions: Frugal Innovations of
Grassroots Entrepreneurs. Sustainability 8: 51.
Pepper, M., Jackson, T. and Uzzell, D. (2009). An examination of the values that motivate socially
conscious and frugal consumer behaviors. International Journal of Consumer Studies 33: 126–136.
Pingali, P., Bigot, Y. and Binswanger, H. (1987). Agricultural Mechanization and the Evolution of
Farming Systems in Sub-Saharan Africa. World Bank. Washington, DC.
Pisoni, A., Michelini, L. and Martignoni, G. (2018). Frugal approach to innovation: State of the art and
future perspectives. Journal of Cleaner Production 171: 107-126.
Prabhu, J and Jain, S. (2015). Innovation and entrepreneurship in India: understanding jugaad. Asia
Pacific Journal of Management 843-868.

Prabhu, J. (2017). Frugal innovation: doing more with less for more. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 375:
20160372.

Prabhu, J., Tracey, P. and Hassan, M. (2017). Marketing to the poor: An institutional model of exchange
in emerging markets. AMS Review 7(3-4).

Prahalad, C.K. (2005). The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid, Eradicating Poverty through Profits.
Wharton School Publishing, Upper Saddle River.
Prahalad, C.K. and Mashelkar, R.A. (2010). “Innovation's holy grail”. Harvard Business Review 88(7-
8): 132-141.
Radjou, N. and Prabhu, J. (2015). Frugal innovation: how to do better with less. London, UK: Profile
Books.
Radjou, N., Prabhu, J., Ahuja, S. and Roberts, K. (2012). Jugaad Innovation: Think Frugal, Be Flexible,
Generate Breakthrough Growth. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Page 16
Rosca, E., Arnold, M. and Bendul, J.C. (2017). Business models for sustainable innovation - an
empirical analysis of frugal products and services. Journal of Cleaner Production 162: S133-S145.

Sharma, A. and Iyer, G.R. (2012). Resource-constrained product development: Implications for green
marketing and green supply chains. Industrial Marketing Management 41(4): 599-608.
Sheth, J.N. (2011). Impact of Emerging Markets on Marketing: Rethinking Existing Perspectives and
Practices. Journal of Marketing 75(4): 166-182.
Shivdas, A. and Chandrasekhar, J. (2016). Sustainability through frugal innovations: an application of
indian spiritual wisdom. Prabandhan. Indian Journal of Management 9(5).
Sinkovics, N., Sinkovics, R.R. and Yamin, M. (2014). “The role of social value creation in business
model formulation at the bottom of the pyramid - implications for MNEs?” International Business
Review 23(4) : 692-707.
Sultan, B., Lalou, R., Sanni, M.A., Oumarou, A. and Soumaré, M.A. (2015). Les sociétés rurales face
aux changements climatiques et environnementaux en Afrique de l'Ouest. IRD éditions, Marseille.
The Worldwatch Institute (2011). Innovations that Nourish the Planet. The Worldwatch Institute,
Washington DC.
Tiwari, R. and Herstatt, C. (2012a). Frugal Innovations for the ‘Unserved’ Customer: An Assessment
of India’s Attractiveness as a Lead Market for Cost-Effective Products. Hamburg, Germany: Hamburg
University of Technology Working Paper No. 69.

Tiwari, R. and Herstatt, C. (2012b). Frugal innovation: a global networks' perspective. Unternehmung
66(3): 245-274.

Williamson, P.J. (2010). Cost innovation: preparing for a ‘value-for-money’ revolution. Long Range
Plan 43(2): 343-353.
Wooder, S. and Baker, S. (2012). Extracting Key Lessons in Service Innovation. Journal of Product
Innovation Management 29(1): 13-20.
World Bank (2008). World Development Report 2008: Agriculture for Development. World Bank,
Washington DC.

World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) report (1987). Our common future.
United Nations, Oslo.
Yin, R.K. (1989). Case Study Research: design and methods, Sage Publications, 2e edition.
Zeschky, M.B., Winterhalter, S. and Gassmann, O. (2014). From cost to frugal and reverse innovation:
Mapping the field and implications for global competitiveness. Research-Technology Management
57(4): 20-27.

Page 17
 Appendix. Extracts of interviews for qualitative analysis
Theme Category
Resource constraints: financial,
natural or environmental,
human, material
Institutional voids: breach of
contracts and rules, trust crisis,
exclusion, lack of vision, weak
State power
Social needs: Problems of low
Constrained
revenues and foods insecurity in
environments
(Antecedents ) rural areas in developing
countries
Verbatim (informants terms)
“Climate changes. The things we used before do not meet our expectations anymore, today. Thus, we
have to find other means.” [Farmer_Other.8]
“The great farm mechanization failed because there was no stuff focused on the real needs of farmers.
They introduced machines, they introduced tractors (…). Additionally, this failure is due to a lack of
maintenance and repair of this equipment. For instance difficulties to find spare parts or qualified
workforce…” [Expert.2]
“When there was still a State, every equipment was experimented by users before introduction into farms,
or at least tested and approved by our service. Nowadays the State does not back anything (…). We need
human resources and adapted equipment.” [Expert.4]
“Concerning equipment policy, the State advances through isolated measures but there is no real
mechanization policy. This explains partly the weak mechanization in Mali.” [Expert.2]
“When the season starts, people are faced with skinny oxen and with massive departures of valid
people. People who cultivated 20 Ha are left with less than 5 Ha. Before, even if the children set out on
an exodus, they came back with the rainy season. Now they don’t come back anymore. (…) If this goes
on like this, the agricultural world will collapse. We have to bring in more convenient technologies.”
[Member_R&D.2]
“Isolation and the electrification problem have also an import on agriculture. With electricity in rural
areas, farmers could use a lot of machines as, very often, the provision of fuel is an issue.” [Expert.4]
“The State gave equipment and the bank funded it. (…) For loans, farmers deliberately don’t pay. What
do they say? ‘In the next election, we shall blackmail them, if politicians do not erase our debts, we shall
not vote for them.’ All farmers’ organizations are more or less politicized over there.” [Expert.1]
Page 18

Initiation phase:
identification of needs and
expectations, scientists
interactions with farmers
Innovation
process for the
motorized seeder Development phase:
and its enablers reduction, recycled and reused
of resources use, bricolage,
mutual learning, farmers
capacity building, farmers
experimentation, local practices,
co-development (farmers,
NGOs, manufacturers, donors),
trust, partnerships, actors’ roles
and responsibilities
“Clients don’t really trust farmers, because when they conclude a contract, farmers then say afterwards
that they don’t have the products. (…) very often they are tempted to sell their products at the highest
market process, even if they are bound by a contract.” [Expert.1]
“The idea arose due to a constraint that famers faced repeatedly: distributing seeds and fertilizers with
micro-doses to face climate change. Using micro-doses helps to increase yield but it is fastidious. One
hectare corresponds to 25000 holes if it is sorghum or mil, i.e. 15 km. If you have to put a pinch in each
hole, it takes too much time and energy. Farmers complained. They say that they cannot spend thus much
time putting pinches in holes. We had to find another way.” [Member_R&D.3]
“(…) by early season, oxen are undernourished and tired (…). Rains are no more abundant. So we have
to adapt to climate change. This change pushes us to adopt faster technologies for farm works.”
[Farmer_tester.2]
“Our famers have expectations. First [they need] technology put at the disposal of farmers. The
technology must be productive, lucrative, easy to use and affordable at low prices. It must decrease time
and hardness also. Finally, it must be adapted to the local environment.” [Member_R&D.3]
“I hadn’t got a lot of money. At the beginning, (…) I used one of my projects to do the first test (…). The
first seeder (animal-drawn) that I brought on site for testing, I paid it out of my own pocket, with my
salary. Afterwards, partners gave funds.” [Promoter]
“We paid a lot of visits. To determine the quantity of micro-doses, we took the pinches of the farmers.
First the seeds alone, then with the fertilizers. This is what we translated into the machine.”
[Member_R&D.1]
“You have the blacksmiths who were trained progressively, whose children picked up the burden. When
we started to reflect on motorization, we hired a blacksmith (…). We discussed with him and we made a
design. We looked at the size of engines on the market. We first did the job in the forge.”
[Member_R&D.1]
“We recycled old motorcycle tires to protect metallic wheels, we reused construction scrap.”
[Member_R&D.1]
Page 19

Innovation
process for the
motorized seeder
and its enablers
Diffusion phase:
donations to some first adopters,
farmers capacity building,
proximity of manufacturers
(local production, service
provision), co-consumption, co-
diffusion (farmers, NGOs,
donors, manufacturers,)
“We set up and supervise experimentations, and we advise users. The experimentation plots are in the
fields of the participating farmers. We collect information, farmers’ viewpoints concerning those
technologies. We intervene to facilitate extension of this equipment.” [Member_NGO.2]
“To understand some phenomena, we need to go to bed at night to try to see the reasons. I am learning
by doing, on the field (…). To reinforce the capabilities of the farmers to work with technology, we took
the hard core to train them (…). They can lead other farmers by example (…).” [Member_NGO.1]
“The training that they provide us and the advices, if you respect them you’ll improve your situation.
Against climate change, pursuing with traditional practices would not be in our best interests.”
[Farmer_Tester.1]
“First, participation is voluntary. Villagers know each other (…). So participants are chosen by the
villages. They know how to provide open persons who will represent the village. They know who is likely
to work long term. They [the chosen volunteers] are persons they trust.” [Member_NGO.1]
“You cannot fully understand a job without practicing. You cannot be convinced by a job without seeing
the results (…). What you look for nowadays is to go forward, not to turn back.” [Farmer_Tester.2]
“We shared our results with several projects and NGOs (…). We just sent 58 seeders to a partner (…).
You need several years to have a feedback of [the results of] the equipment in the field (…).”
[Member_R&D.5]
“We draw upon those who will represent their village and will show the example to other farmers. When
they adopt a technique, others will follow.” [Member_R&D.2]
“I never had my own seeder. I borrow the animal-drawn seeder of my brother to sow. Our father bought
this seeder more than 30 years ago.” [Farmer_Other.7]
“That would be ideal if the associations could buy the machines and [allow them to] exploit them
together (…).” [Expert.5]
Page 20
 Economic impact:
affordability, cost minimization,
use utility, multi-functionality
Social impact:
youth employment, female
farmer empowerment,
Impacts of the
household and social cohesion,
motorized seeder
feeling of social progress
“The animal-drawn seeder asks for 1 man / day by hectare. With the hoe, it is equivalent to 8 to 12 men
/ day. With the motorized seeder, it is only 0.3 man/day by hectare.” [Member_R&D.1]
“With the new seeder, work time decreases, hardness diminishes and production increases.”
[Farmer_Other.3]
“It is a time, energy and money saver. They save money for seeds and fertilizers, and for the maintenance
of oxen.” [Member_NGO.3]
“One hectare in less than 2 hours, with less than 2 liters of fuel, which is the seeder.” [Member_R&D.2]
“I hope [that they will develop] mass production and that it will be available for everybody at affordable
prices.” [Farmer_Other.8]
“It is an opportunity for youth to start a business in the agricultural sector. It is a support for agricultural
entrepreneurship.” [Member_NGO.3]
“We want to pursue change together, and that we will no more see those poor women bending their
backs down to sow, weed. It is not about providing them tractors, there is lighter equipment.” [Expert.4]
“In our perspectives, we intend to make it accessible for physically disabled persons.”
[Member_R&D.1]
“When you go to villages nowadays, young people, when they tell their story, you would be surprised.
Because before a young guy was proud to say ‘the whole day I beat everybody at ploughing’. Young men
even got women for marriage because of that, because they were great cultivators. But now, young people
think that that is being a bull and nobody was born to be a bull. This is because they have seen tractors,
they have seen tillers, seeders (…).” [Expert.4]
“With this seeder, if you are alone to sow, others can do other things. That is progress.”
[Farmer_Tester.1]
“If the family is self-sufficient, it will prevent conflicts within it, decrease strains on the marriage.”
[Farmer_Tester.4]
Page 21
 Environmental impact:
recycling facility, fuel-
efficiency, lower soil
degradation, use of micro-doses
technique
Institutional impact:
norms respect, trust building,
accessibility
Impacts of the
motorized seeder
Collaborative impact:
interaction, openness, network
(local small entrepreneurs,
NGOs, research organizations,
etc.)
“The seeder allows putting micro-doses of fertilizer. It allows using in the field just what is needed and
to avoid to put too much of it. It is a light machine that exerts little pressure on the soil. (…) One hectare
in less than 2 hours with less than 2 liters of fuel that is the seeder.” [Member_R&D.2]
“The seeder is local. In almost all villages of Mali, there is a blacksmith who can manufacture a seeder
(…). We identified the manufacturers who will be trained to ensure a manufacturing norm. Hence, you
can find the same standard for all those manufacturers across Mali.” [Member_R&D.1]
“Thanks to the proximity of blacksmiths, farmers should no more walk long distances to be equipped.”
[Member_R&D.2]
“One should ideally create small agricultural companies, provide them with that [the seeder] to
provide services, as everyone cannot obtain it.” [Member_NGO.3]
“Research makes recommendations (…) to manufacture disks. Our blacksmiths don’t have this
information and don’t master the concept of accuracy. The disk is manufactured with millimeter
accuracy.” [Member_R&D.1]
“I wish that they don’t let me down, that we can continue working together so I can acquire new
knowledge.” [Farmer_Tester.4]
Page 22